Aged Care Crisis - Australia’s Greatest Shame

And What Will Rudd, Milne and Abbott do about it?

above: The needs of Australia's Aged citizens are just as urgent as the needs of the Disabled - sometimes more.  There is no excuse for not implementing National Aged Care Insurance along similar lines to the NDIS - or 'Disability Care Australia'.

 

In this article ALP Socialist Left activist, Tristan Ewins takes a look at the recent report on Aged Care at ABC's "Lateline" program - and puts the argument for comprehensive Aged Care Insurance - how it should be funded - and the services it should provide...

 

Earlier this week ABC’s ‘Lateline’ lifted the lid on an Aged Care Crisis which I hav e been trying to draw attention to for many years .    

In light of the revelations arising from the Lateline program, we will begin this article by recalling the basic substance of that recent (July 15^th ) story.

ABC investigative journalist Margot O’Neil constructed a report for ‘Lateline’ after conducting a year-long investigation that common complaints about the quality of aged care in Australia included residents:

“being left in faeces and urine, rough treatment, poor nutrition, inadequate pain relief, verbal abuse, and untreated broken bones and infections.

And  further:

“one woman has told the ABC that her grandmother, who survived Nazi concentration camps, believes her experiences in aged care are worse than her wartime ordeal.”

Jane Green – daughter of former high intensity aged care resident Margaret McEvoy – recalled her own specific story to the ABC how, explaining how:

“For five days, staff tried to make Ms McEvoy walk. In fact, she had an undiagnosed broken thigh bone, a raging infection, and severe dehydration.”

The ABC further observed that:  “Ms Green, who is also a nurse, had to fight to get her mother taken to hospital, where she was immediately put into palliative care. She died six weeks later.”

In a similar story nurse and health care lecturer Mardi Walker:

“was horrified when she found her [91 year old] grandmother with exposed raw ear cartilage due to lack of turning, and one of her arms immobilised after staff botched injections.”

She recalls that: "They would just keep injecting into the same spot and she would scream. My mother said it was horrific, because she would scream.”

The ABC also made the accusation:  “Repeated surveys find that 20 to 50 per cent of nursing home residents are malnourished, and the Australian Medical Association says there are not enough doctors to visit residents.” 

And meanwhile: “The Nursing Federation says there are not enough properly trained carers, while Palliative Care Australia says only one in five residents receive proper palliative care.”

New Aged Care and Mental Health Minister Jacinta Collins responded by reaffirming that the Government had  a “10 year plan.”

When asked by ‘Lateline’ the Minister had no credible answer to why the government has failed to act decisively in response to Aged Care abuses and systemic failures when compared with its response to abuse of cattle in Indonesia. 

Lateline journalist Emma Aberici further pressed Minister, Jacinta Collins on why Aged Care accreditation processes do not include assessments of the mental and physical well-being of aged care residents, including dehydration, malnutrition, depression, bedsores, falls, chronic pain, pain-management, over-use or inappropriate use of anti-psychotic medication, forced restraint and so on.

Collins was uncertain what research was being conducted in these fields.  She asserted that families can discern between different providers in the best interests of their loved ones.

But if there is a SYSTEMIC failure due to chronic LACK OF FUNDS and failure to enforce sufficient standards, then it stands to reason that families often have little choice.   And that is especially so when they are looking for a residence relatively close-by to enable regular visits.

Collins observed that over 200,000 Australians are currently in residential care – and that is going to expand dramatically with the ageing population. She also suggested that staff to resident ratios might be considered ‘in the future’. 

Finally, the Minister proclaimed she would visit Aged Care facilities ‘on the ground’ to see for herself the quality of care.   

But time is of the essence and action needs to be ‘locked in’ now  to be implemented in the near future – as a matter of urgency.   Collins also needs to visit a very wide range of facilities without notice in order to get a better idea of what conditions are really like ‘on the ground’ , while consulting closely with families who have reported neglect and abuse.

While Collins deserves to be given a degree of slack on account of only recently taking the Ministry, the Lateline Report shows that the time for procrastination and empty rhetoric is over. 

Rudd, Milne and Abbott need to immediately form a response to this story, and to the many stories provided by some residents and many families who have been trying – often without success – to bring this issue to the forefront of public discourse for years.  They need to devote new funds – many billions of new funds for every year. 

Alberici observed that most high intensity care resident spend less than 2 years in care.  And yet those can be two years of Hell. Whereas improvements in the standard of care could provide much greater comfort, better health, and perhaps extended (quality) life-spans.

I will now re-iterate what needs to be done; and what I hope others – including our politicians and political parties - will now demand to be done:

Firstly a National Aged Care Insurance Scheme needs to be established along similar lines to the National Disability Insurance Scheme – which in 2010 was estimated to cost $15 billion a year.  ($22 billion by 2020)   

A National Aged Care Insurance Scheme demands a similar commitment of resources; implemented as quickly as possible given the urgency of the suffering of our families and loved ones.  Immediate funding options include further increases to the Medicare Levy, cutbacks in superannuation concessions for the wealthy and the upper middle class, and reductions in the rate of Dividend Imputation. (reverting to 75% would save about $6 billion)

Such funding needs to secure the following outcomes:

·        Official quality control that includes comprehensive ongoing assessments of the mental and physical well-being of aged care residents, including dehydration, malnutrition, depression, bedsores, falls, chronic pain, pain-management, over-use or inappropriate use of anti-psychotic medication, forced restraint and so on .

 

·        Generous nurse/staff to patient ratios – improving the quality of care by freeing nurses and staff to turn residents to avoid bedsores;  wash residents whenever necessary; provide comfort and social interaction; ensure food is of decent quality and is actually eaten;  constantly monitor residents and ensure that health needs are always addressed as a matter of urgency.

 

·        Weekly visits by doctors and immediate provision of dental care for any who have the need .

 

·        Better training, pay scales and career paths for Aged Care professionals including nurses and other qualified staff.

 

·        Privacy for aged care residents including private rooms and other personal space.

 

·        Daily facilitated Social interaction; outings to shops, gardens and churches; access to information and communications technology and services; libraries; facilitated reading; discussions and games – A better life than being sat down to stare at a television, or perhaps just at walls all day!

 

·        Better programs encouraging volunteers to visit residents and provide conversation and comfort.

 

·        Provision of gardens and similar space to provide greater tranquillity and a change-of-scenery; as well as time in the sunlight during the warmer months

 

·        The best quality palliative care for all who have the need

Meanwhile for low-intensity care residents, and those being cared for by loved ones, greater financial support is necessary for Carers, as well as regular respite, and institutionalised support when it comes to health, outings, diverse social interaction, home help, and construction of extensions or ‘granny flats’.

Stop Regressive User-Pays!

For all levels of care, meanwhile, User-Pays mechanisms need to be immediately wound back.  This in itself will cost billions – on top of the cost of actually improving the quality and legislated standards of care.   

Again – we need to see this as a comprehensive National Aged Care Insurance Scheme along similar lines to the National Disability Insurance Scheme. (NDIS)  Those needing care should not be driven to take out tens or even hundreds of thousands of equity against their houses. This operates as a grossly regressive ‘flat tax’.  Residents from relatively poor and working class families especially don’t deserve this ‘final cruel blow’.

Residents who need only low-intensity care, meanwhile, need to enjoy the appropriate level of care, enabling greater flexibility and freedom as long as possible.

Finally Funding for Advocacy groups is necessary in order to empower families; and for purposes of supporting advocates for those not in a position to stand up for themselves against abuses.  (Eg: those without family, and those with dementia)

This issue will resonate powerfully with families: families who love their elders dearly, and those who (legitimately) fear for their own futures.   The mainstream parties – Greens, Labor, Liberals – all need a comprehensive response to the issues raised by Lateline – culminating in a consensus on a National Aged Care Insurance Scheme along similar lines to what occurred with the NDIS.  Procrastination, opportunism or mean-spiritedness on this issue need to be condemned in the strongest possible terms.

For those of us who care about this issue we need to maintain the pressure – and maintain the profile of the cause of reform.  We need to ensure the fullest possible reform over the shortest possible passage of time – as the needs of our most vulnerable are urgent – their sufferings neglected until now - demanding immediate action.

This issue is out in the open now for everyone to see.  There are no more excuses.

References:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-16/shocking-claims-elderly-being-mistreated-in-nursing-homes/4821492

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisabilityCare_Australia

Observations in the Wake of the Rudd Restoration

above: Julia Gillard

A Retrospective on the  Gillard Leadership - and Last Chance Policy Fixes for Rudd Labor

i)                    Much to be treasured from the Gillard Leadership: and Rudd’s motives more complex than recognised by some Feminist critics

Recently I read an article claiming that the core issue behind Julia Gillard’s loss of the Labor leadership was a ‘boy’s club mentality’; that is put simply: patriarchy re-asserting itself…  (See:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/10148541/The-boys-club-always-wins-in-politics-Julia-Gillard-is-the-latest-victim.html )

I think, though, that things are more complex than the author of that article acknowledges. I agree that Rudd took advantage of the ‘blue tie factor’ in response to the Gillard speech. Responding to male resentment following Gillard’s recent speech on the threat to women’s participation in public life, it was a clever ploy – underscoring impressions Gillard was being divisive, and appealing to a mass male demographic which felt threatened by Gillard’s stand.  I agree this was a form of destabilization – and even if effective, it was the [ethically] wrong ‘symbolic tactic’. And I agree there have been men – powerful right-wing men – who have subjected Gillard to constant mockery in order to weaken her authority and credibility – and sometimes in the most debased and sexist form.   And that sexism still comprises a problem in parts of the broader electorate as well.

But this was also personal vindication for Rudd in a way that goes way beyond gender… If Rudd had been ‘done in’ by another man his bitterness was have been just as palpable. Arguably, there was also bitterness in the 'Rudd camp' because it appears Rudd as PM was removed at the behest of Australia’s powerful mining industry – after he had attempted to introduce a Mining Super Profits Tax to spread the benefits of our mining boom… As I’ve said before – both ‘camps’ in Labor tried to set a precedent.  Each side attempted a ‘political scorched earth’ strategy against the other – and that only escalated the division and crisis. That an accommodation and reconciliation was not achieved earlier led us to this point – with the caucus elevating Rudd as their ‘only hope’ due to his consistent ascendancy in the polls.

Importantly – the monopoly mass media in this country (largely controlled by Rinehart, Murdoch etc) exploited the internal conflict to destabilise the ALP.  But now that Rudd has returned he is enjoying a ‘honeymoon’ courtesy of previous ‘oxygen’ he was provided by that very media establishment… But will the media continue to ‘give Labor a fair go’ now?  Some are talking of Rudd reforming the compromise mining tax we ended up with – But what chance of this with Rinehart dominating the traditionally (and still relatively) liberal Fairfax media assets?

IN the final analysis, though, Gillard deserves credit for pursuing education reform, implementing disability insurance, promoting a better deal for low paid workers (mainly women) in the community services sector and elsewhere, and improving diplomatic relations with China. Though there were bad policies too: Sole Parent Pensions reduced; Disability Pension eligibility narrowed etc… Recognition of all this is part of the answer for future healing in the ALP – for the same reason that the former Labor leaderships’ past attempts to ‘airbrush’ the Rudd governmentt’s prior achievements only escalated and deepened the internal conflict… And in any case Gillard DESERVES recognition for her policy achievements under the most difficult circumstances of minority government…

Here’s hoping Labor now has a chance of fending off the prospect of an Abbott Liberal Government – which could be the most right-wing government we have had in decades should it come to pass…

ii)                  Conclusions: Possible Election-Winning Rudd ‘Policy Fixes’ as the ‘Day of Reckoning’ Draws Nearer

above:  Will Rudd take the Opportunity for Bold Reforms that take the Fight to Abbott?

Superannuation Concessions Reform to pay for ETS reversions: and Tax Breaks to pay for wage cuts flowing from Superannuation Increases

To go early? Or go later and maybe reconvene parliament?

I believe it would just be good for Rudd to "get some reforms under his belt" before the election if possible; including restructuring the tax and spending mix in such a way as to pre-empt Abbott... (For example: if we remove superannuation concessions from the wealthy and the upper middle class to pay for winding back the carbon tax to an ETS...)  If we don't do this and Abbott wins - he can use fiscal pressures as a rationale to wind back social expenditure and welfare. So if possible we should get the reforms in place while taking away the Abbott excuse/rationale for austerity. Getting 'reforms under his belt' could also give Rudd more credibility - a concrete indicator of the direction he intends to take Labor should he win the election.

Not to mention we should have an interest in distributive justice for low and middle income Australia regardless of pragmatics. In 2012 Dr Richard Denniss of the Australia Institute argued that removing superannuation concessions from the top 5% would save over $10 billion.   (See: http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2012/s3568235.htm )

Meanwhile, today that figure would be significantly higher: and targeting the top 10% demographic would presumably bring in much more.  

So not only could this money pay for an early reversion to an ETS. (which is a very regrettable political imperative)  The removal of subsidies/concessions for the wealthy and upper middle class could pay for an expansion of the Clean Energy Fund. And it could also pay for improved welfare - and make room for tax cuts for low income groups to overcome the effect of the increase to 12% superannuation contributions for these already-struggling families.   

To clarify on superannuation: veteran Fairfax journalist Ken Davidson made the point in 2010 that those on low incomes cannot afford to lose disposable income.  And he has pointed out that the extra employer contributions will largely be ‘swallowed up’ as bosses hold back on wage increases.  (see: http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/super-rise-no-blessing-for-workers-20100516-v6az.html )

Davidson is right that today the superannuation industry comprises a private pension system – where risk is privatised – and within a highly inegalitarian framework.  While the Aged Pension was once a great leveler – in the future retirement income will be greatly stratified and effectively discriminate against women, and low income, part-time and casual workers.  The Aged Pension itself faces potential future marginalisation as a second-class, residual system. 

And as Davidson notes there is growing pressure for governments to privatise their remaining assets by selling them to the superannuation funds.   This is presented as saving governments from the need to invest in future infrastructure. But what would the ultimate consequence be?

There remain potential problems, here, even where those funds are union-controlled.  There is the potential that they may increasingly comprise ‘corporate interests’ – which pursue their own particular interest rather than the general interest. 

As the important socialist thinker Eduard Bernstein pointed out as far back as the 1890s - as the “mistress of a whole branch of production” even unions theoretically have the potential to  become “a monopolist productive association…antagonistic to socialism and democracy…”  Here,  “Associations against the community are as little socialism as the oligarchic government of the state.” (Bernstein; pp 114-119, pp 138-141)    Of course there is a difference between Bernstein’s example here, and that of Australian unions – but the theme of general versus particular interest is the same. (the answer, of course, is natural public monopolies where appropriate)

Referring to the Superannuation Industry, Ken Davidson wrote for the Sydney Morning Herald in 2012:

“Specifically, the superannuation industry has its eye on existing water, road, rail and port assets, which are largely monopolies with assured income streams. To reveal what is at stake, assume that, as state monopolies, these assets earn 5 per cent on capital for the government and would be expected to earn 10 per cent on capital for private investors… This means that the assets worth $100 billion on the government's books, would only be worth $50 billion to the private operators if the prices for the services remained the same. The government might get $100 billion for the assets if it allowed the new owners to double prices for the services.” (Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/its-about-time-super-funds-stepped-up-20120729-235y4.html#ixzz2YFLdAnnr )


It is too late to substantially alter Labor’s 12% superannuation promise, and too difficult to sell Davidson’s complex message to the electorate on the eve of the election. Especially when Labor has been selling this policy unequivocally for so long, and many of our supporters are convinced it is ‘free money’.

But the government has options in creating a more egalitarian system.

Again this should involve cutting superannuation concessions for the wealthy and the upper middle class – which could bring in well over $10 billion. (I have no modeling beyond Richard Denniss’s figures ** – but extrapolating from that a minimum of $15 billion seems credible for 2014) And using some of those proceeds, in addition to paying for an early reversion to an Emissions Trading Scheme, and an increased Clean Energy fund - it must also mean further restructuring of the tax mix. Further, it should also involve easing of means tests for some partial self-funded retirees. And what is more, this could involve another real increase in the Aged Pension, and improvements in social wage benefits for pensioners of all kinds. This should include improved cost-of-living subsidies (energy, water), and free or discounted access to the NBN and public transport. Finally, here, the funds released by superannuation concession reform could be ploughed into infrastructure and completely bypass pressures for privatisation.

Concluding, though, the most industrially strong unions could attempt to hold onto their share (ie: the labour share) of the economic pie – even in the context of increasing superannuation contributions from employers - but also in the hope that this could occur in the context of a squeeze on profits, rather than a squeeze on consumers. Whether or not this happens also depends on how profitable and how competitive the economic sectors in question are. Competitve sectors with lower profit margins would have little room to move.

The election is far from over; and neither are Labor’s policy options exhausted even at this late point in the electoral cycle. Let us hope Rudd Labor governs and reforms in the interest of justice and equity for most of what remains of 2013 – and that the consequence is another reforming Labor government.

References:

Allison Pearson from ‘The Telegraph”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/10148541/The-boys-club-always-wins-in-politics-Julia-Gillard-is-the-latest-victim.html

Bernstein, Eduard  “Evolutionary Socialism”, Shocken Books, NewYork, 1961

Ken Davidson at ‘The Age’ and the SMH::

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/super-rise-no-blessing-for-workers-20100516-v6az.html )

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/its-about-time-super-funds-stepped-up-20120729-235y4.html#ixzz2YFLdAnnr )

** Denniss argues removing superannuation concessions from the top 5% income demographic alone could bring in $10 billion in 2012; For my purposes I am assuming the top 10% should be targeted in the reforms I am suggesting.

Election Fiction versus Political Reality

above: the author, Justin George

In this article, Justin George considers the shallowness of discourse surrounding the 2010 Australian Federal Election.  Spin and trivia overshadow political substance, obscuring the narrowness of choice between the main parties.  But regardless, rather than counselling resignation the author calls for mobilisation and hope.


by Justin George

The vacuousness of the current Australian election is the culmination of several trends that have been shaping and directing Australian politics over the last 15+ years.

From the time of the ALP brokered ‘Accord’ between unions and business to allow for the introduction of Hawke and Keating’s free market reforms, to the push to the right and conservatism of the Howard years that resulted in a jingoistic and antiquated form of nationalism and political dialogue, Australian politics and political parties have drifted to the right of the political spectrum for the last twenty or more years.

The ‘wilderness’ years of the ALP during the Howard reign, saw it completely shake itself of any meaningful remnants of its past as a worker’s party. To share power in modern Australia requires appealing not to working class interests or improving the daily lives of the majority of the population, but to ensure and secure the wealth, privilege and power of those at the top-Corporate Australia.

Both the ALP and LNP have moved away from their traditional, ideological bases. The disconnect of the ALP from any meaningful popular working class base is mirrored by the trade unions themselves as both have sought power over true representation.

The Liberal Party under Howard moved away from the principles of classical Liberalism, where concepts of freedom, justice and minimizing the intervention of government in people’s lives emerged from a rich theoretical heritage, to a Liberalism that serviced the economic realm solely. This was combined with a social conservatism that abandoned Liberal notions, outside of economic policy, completely.

The result has been a politics in Australia that is firmly framed by the right, with a two party dominated system where both parties rely upon and pander to business for financial support to replace the lack of meaningful popular bases within the country.

In a feedback loop, each party has moved more to ensure business support and funding. The further disconnected they have become from traditional bases, the further their reliance on business has become. This in part also explains why both parties have needed to embrace the rhetoric of populist politics to camouflage their policies’ true benefactors.

All of this has been driven by the current corporate media environment we see in Australia today. In this environment only two companies own and control all the nation’s major newspapers and television stations. The result, here, is that only one nationally available newspaper is published - run by billionaire Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch’s media empire spans the globe reflecting his rightwing, neoliberal position via a cynical form of crass populism.

As media ownership becomes concentrated and as people’s spare time becomes more pressed, the pressures on politics and media are to strip away meaningful debate. Exploration of ideas, of policies and their merits, are forsaken in favour of sound bites, catchphrases and the more entertaining clash of personalities.

The economic structure of corporate media also drives this process. A focus on profit rather than providing a public service to the population drives the current media model. A general rejection of intelligent and challenging programming that does not assume a lack of intelligence on behalf of its audience has seen a rise in sensationalist and vacuous news and current affairs coverage that appeals to the lowest common denominator.

The dumbing-down of news, and particularly politics, to a circus - a real life soap opera of personalities - makes for splashy headlines and easy to produce but highly rating television segments and news programs. This strategy is designed to increase audience ratings - which then enable television stations to sell advertising time or space at higher rates. This facilitates - for the right price - the meeting of a captive audience to a company’s particular product or service.

Politics then becomes another profitable media extravaganza: cheap to produce and to market, but yielding excellent returns. Finding or developing a political narrative rather than political content and meaning becomes the primary focus. In this manner we see elections being a clash of personalities and special interest stories: of Julia Gillard’s husband; of Tony Abbott’s sporting pursuits; the drama of Kevin Rudd being pushed out of office- the ‘who said what to whom’. If a narrative line plays itself out, or a more exciting or controversial narrative can be found then the story changes quickly and like Orwell’s memory-hole the previous issues or stories are quickly forgotten.

It is this framework that politics and political parties - especially during an election - pander to. Rather than challenge the reduction of important issues and ideals to mere soap, political parties cater to it.

Hence we have ‘Moving Forward’ vs ‘Real Action’. Hence we have debates so heavily scripted that the purpose of having a debate is itself lost. This is visible in both parties’ policies, especially the craven and ugly narratives being played out regarding asylum seekers, immigration and all the fears and resentment it carries. Policies like that attract headlines and vocal support from Murdoch’s lackeys and shoulder shrugs or mild handwringing from the Fairfax media.

This corporate media environment facilitates the appearance of difference between the parties. By removing the need for meaningful difference, news media helps enable the appearance of difference via its soap opera narrative coverage. In another cyclical process, the shift of Australian politics towards the right has also driven the media to find stories and divisions where few actually exist. As the parties become similar on what matters, media coverage spends more time on the remaining superficial differences.

Both the ALP and LNP are parties of business: only the degrees vary. To compete, the ALP moved to the right. Now out of power, the LNP has found it necessary to move even further to the right. In an attempt to not be undercut, the ALP, with Gillard at the helm, has sought to trend its policies even further to the right again.

The ALP seeks to mask its politics with an appearance of concern for ‘working families’ and the like. The Liberal-National coalition isn’t restricted by such niceties. The fundamental policy and ideological substance shared by the two remains the same.

The lack of difference then sees debate centring on how much, if any, tax should be placed on the mining industry. Or which market driven response to climate change is preferred. Or who can be the most ruthless to desperate people arriving from war-torn countries.

The debate is not on whether the market is fundamentally flawed in addressing climate change, which is an effect of the wasteful inefficiencies of the market that now threaten environmental collapse.
The debate does not centre on whether the mining industry should be nationalized with public control deciding how profits are distributed for public benefit.

The debate does not centre on the fact that our military, or our allies, are directly responsible for the destruction that forces people to flee their homes in leaky boats.

Such a politics would require principles and courage, a respect for democratic notions.

The mining tax ‘furore’ especially demonstrates the increasing vulnerability of our meagre democratic processes to big business and media manipulation. The modest attempt by Rudd Labor to cut into mining companies’ profits, and therefore their power, was responded to by an industry threat to remove the government from power via a 200 million dollar media assault.

This highlights how all parties involved pursued their own interests and forgot about the Australian people. The ALP kowtowed to the mining lobby, avoiding a campaign against it during an election year. The mining companies obviously were seeking to maintain their exorbitant profits, not caring about the environmental and other costs that come from practices. The media not only received a situation that could be easily framed into an appropriate narrative, it also was happy to receive the money from the mining companies for the advertising space to protest against the tax.

The difficulty of a principled, truly democratic and participatory Australian politics emerging is thus evident. If introducing substantive changes that seek to shift power from corporate Australia back to the Australian population were introduced it would face challenges much greater and widespread than witnessed with Rudd’s mining tax.

It is in this manner that both parties are parties of corporate Australia. To challenge their masters would see them removed from political power either from without or from within as we have seen recently. The result then is an interconnected race towards a hollow democracy lacking in real choice or democratic participation, driven by image instead of substance.

However, just as the problem is a web of interrelated issues, potential solutions also rely upon addressing these interconnections. Addressing the corporate strangle hold on Australian politics involves in the short term refusing to participate in the two party system. Voting for independently funded parties helps undermine the two dominant parties’ power base. If third parties are successful, election reform and parliamentary reform could bring about an end of the two party system in favour of proportional systems such as those in Europe where a range of political actors shape policy rather than merely two.

Media ownership reform is needed. Australia has the least diverse media ownership in the world. TV and newspapers provide a vital role in educating and informing people about what is happening in their society, a vibrant media means a healthy democracy.

Reject sensationalist news media. Turn it off or don’t purchase it. Demand meaningful content, and support small independent operations that provide critical information about those in power. Democracy means informed citizenry.

In the longer term, corporate, market economics must be seen for what it is- inherently anti-democratic, environmentally unsustainable and unreformable. Our economic, political and media realms all need active popular participation, with processes that engage people, facilitating democratic input and direction on how we organize our lives, how we make decisions, the principles that guide those decisions and the media that reflects, questions and analyses those decisions.

Further, we need a politics that addresses the needs of a majority of the population; and that seeks to empower the population; engaging them in the political process rather than one designed to create apathy and cynicism.

It is easy to be cynical in the modern world. To do so often feels like rebellion, but it merely masks an acceptance - and thus a complicity - with the world as it currently stands, and those small few who benefit from it. Elections remind people of this reality: of how little say we have in the current workings of power.

That, however, can be changed in both the short and long term. It requires demanding more from those in power; critically engaging in politics; rejecting cynicism in favour of principles such as democratic participation, equitable outcomes, and sustainability.

In doing so, Australian politics still holds potential be filled with substance: such as to improve and enrich our lives rather than maintaining the current state of popular disillusionment. In promoting popular mobilisation and hope: a better world remains possible.


Justin George is a PhD candidate at the University of Melbourne and Participatory Society Advocate. His writing can be found at http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/movingpast

nb: If you enjoyed this article pls join our Facebook group - to link up with other readers, and to receive regular updates on new material.
see: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=58243419565

The Legacy of Rudd Labor – and the challenge confronting Julia Gillard

above: New Australian Prime Minister, Julia Gillard and former PM, Kevin Rudd

Former Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd has been deposed efficiently and suddenly. But now would be an apt time to consider the real legacy of Rudd Labor.  And now it is also a good time to consider the policy challenges facing Australia's Federal Labor government under the leadership of Julia Gillard: Australia's first woman Prime Minister.

by Tristan Ewins

Speculation had raged for weeks, yet still few seemed to have had warning of what was to come. Kevin Rudd – who once had been amongst the most popular Australian Prime Ministers ever – was removed in an internal ‘coup d’etat’: brutally, efficiently, suddenly. The impetus apparently came from the Victorian and New South Wales right-wing factions of the Australian Labor Party.

The Federal Australian Labor government had been taking hard blows in crucial areas for months; and a prolonged character assassination campaign against the Prime Minister was beginning to stick. Faced with a massive and unrelenting campaign by mining companies, and by large sections of the Australian media, Rudd sometimes appeared rattled or angry. Those wanting a pretext upon which to judge the Prime Minister felt the smears against his character were confirmed.

But the events of late June 2010 had been some time in coming.

First there was a public-funded ‘Home Insulation Program’ (HIP): intended to provide stimulus to ward off recession; but also to reduce energy consumption on heating, and thus ameliorate climate change. A creditable idea in its conception, the implementation, however, was poor. Several house fires ensued following the policy’s enactment, and four tradesmen died as a consequence of negligence on the part of the installation companies, and insufficient regulatory oversight. The government was thus discredited in the eyes of many in the electorate. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/19/2824707.htm

The government also came in for criticism for its failure to enact deep and effective legislation aimed at combating climate change.

Kevin Rudd had laboured to the point of exhaustion at Copenhagen to achieve a solid international position to take on the threat of climate change. He had also reached out to the conservative parties in Australia, but just when a compromise position seemed to have been consolidated the hard right of the Liberal and National parties revolted, with new leader Tony Abbott taking a ‘hard line’ against reform.

Many Australians were confused by the complexity of the proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) also; and under Abbott the conservatives capitalised upon this confusion. Abbott made gross – but effective - simplifications, playing upon peoples’ fears, labelling the proposed CPRS ‘a great big tax on everything’. http://www.theage.com.au/national/push-comes-to-shove-in-a-cold-climate-20100625-z9t3.html

The Australian Greens meanwhile proposed a simpler (and perhaps more effective) carbon tax; but in what might have been a fateful decision, the author believes Labor strategists concluded such a strategy would be too hard to sell.

Adam Morton, writing in ‘The Age’, observes that it was the right-wing factions of Labor who ultimately pressured Rudd to put-off action on a CPRS “until at least 2013”; and that those who clinically assassinated Rudd’s Prime Ministerial career, had themselves partly to blame for damage to ‘the Labor brand’. This was demonstrated at the time by a significant defection of Labor’s support base to the Greens.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/push-comes-to-shove-in-a-cold-climate-20100625-z9t3.html

The final – and crucial – blow came in the form of Rudd’s confrontation with Australia’s powerful mining giants.

As the author has stated in an earlier post: Rudd’s proposed mining super-profits tax was both fair and sustainable.

I emphasise again, following on from our last post at ‘Left Focus’; economics journalist Tim Colebatch has established that:

“The Bureau of Statistics' recent round-up of industry data for 2008-09 estimates the profit margin in mining that year was 37.1 per cent. That's three times the industry average of 11.2 per cent… They're doing well.” http://www.watoday.com.au/opinion/politics/resource-tax-amounts-to-40-nationalisation-of-the-mines-20100607-xqn0.html

‘Kicking in’ only at profits of 12 per cent or higher, this truly was to be a tax of ‘super-profits’ in a meaningful sense of the word.

But Rudd could not stand against a combination of factors which set a truly dangerous precedent for Australian politics, and the meaningfulness of our democracy.

The mining companies had a potential war chest running into the hundreds of millions of dollars, and were able to saturate much of Australia’s media with a cunning and ingenuous fear campaign. In this they were aided by conservative Opposition leader, Tony Abbott, who parroted the required line on a daily basis as part of some unholy and opportunistic alliance. Abbott tried to have us believe that putting a premium on the minerals that belong to all of us would mean ‘the end’ of the industry and of tens of thousands of jobs. Finally, what must be assumed to be a convergence of interests between the mining companies, the conservatives and sections of the media – manifested in a crude framing of the debate; to discredit the government, and to destroy Rudd.

What this shows quite plainly is that Australian democracy is not so robust as to stand against the power of wealth in some circumstances. So long as wealth is able to dominate the public sphere, and set the terms for debate, democratic institutions and movements ‘do not have a chance’ when it comes to challenging the most powerful vested interests. The interests responsible in this sense for Rudd’s demise will want to obscure this to prevent Australians from drawing these obviously radical conclusions. Instead they will try and ensure ‘history’ is written on their terms: that Rudd’s demise was purely the consequence of flaws in his judgement and character.

That said: while Rudd sometimes disappointed his supporters dreadfully – think, for instance, of his failure to abolish the anti-union ABCC (Australian Building and Construction Commission), and his failure to restore unions rights to pattern bargaining - reflecting upon his legacy it is plain that this was a man with a genuine reform agenda.

While not fully ‘rolling back’ the repugnant industrial relations agenda of the former Howard conservative government, Rudd did enact changes that improved the wages, conditions, job security and rights of a great many Australian workers.

Rudd Labor sought to use the mining super-profits tax as the foundation from which to achieve an increase in employer contributions to worker’s superannuation funds.

Rudd Labor ratified Kyoto, and Rudd worked himself to exhaustion fighting for action on climate change at Copenhagen. He also had the foresight to make a massive public commitment to building a National Broadband Network which would position Australia to grow the knowledge industries which will arise in the coming decades.

Rudd Labor enacted landmark legislation for paid parental leave, made a genuine and heartfelt apology to Indigenous Australia’s ‘stolen generation’, and passed critical reform of pensions: especially in favour of those struggling on the Single Aged Pension. Stimulatory ‘cash payments’ were also targeted to some of Australia’s most disadvantaged and vulnerable.

Critically, Rudd Labor’s counter-cyclical investment and expenditure saved Australia from recession: standing in stark contrast to events elsewhere. For those who reflect upon this experience, the perceived superiority of the conservative parties on economic management should now well and truly have been refuted.

Further: reform of public health – shifting the burden proportionately towards the Federal government – while not sufficiently redressing funding gaps in the here and now – may have set the scene for future reform. By this I infer that if the Federal government is accountable for health, and in contrast with the states has the tax-levers at its disposal to increase funding – this might well place further reform ‘on the agenda’ for the future.

Finally, referring to a reform which had received limited public attention, Rudd stated his pride in lifting organ donation rates: with the consequence of many lives saved. This was of deep personal significance to the former Prime Minister, as he himself has been a recipient of organ donation. http://www.smh.com.au/national/rudd-proud-of-achievements-but-not-of-blubbing-20100624-z0tv.html

In the future; reflecting upon his time as Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd can at least take comfort that his was a genuine and in many ways positive legacy.

Considering the recent state of Rudd Labor, though, the author feels that the former Prime Minister’s position was not beyond being salvaged.

A strategic withdrawal to a better defensive position might have been made in establishing a mining tax regime for which there had already been an Australian precedent. (ie: Petroleum and Gas resource rent) Or perhaps other measures – but not so far as to cut the projected increase in revenue by more than half. This could have been of great benefit in allaying voter’s fears.

And Rudd Labor could have capitalised upon its achievements once a compromise had been consolidated on the mining super-profits tax: with the fear campaign no longer ‘saturating’ the public sphere. As we have seen: there was indeed a significant array of genuine achievements.

But now the deed has been done. The power-brokers obviously believed that the haemorrhaging of Labor’s support base under Rudd was beyond remedy. Rudd was the ‘sacrificial lamb’ for Labor’s apparent ‘fresh start’. And despite the outrage of many, it is an important landmark as Julia Gillard emerges as Australia’s first woman Prime Minister.

Although in the past having proclaimed herself a socialist, and having come from the Labor Party’s left-wing, Gillard has not refrained from confronting unions. This has occurred regularly in her past capacity as Minister for Industrial Relations and Education. There are many who question her ‘left credentials’: but there are some also for whom any such doubts would actually be ‘a plus’.

Importantly, a Age/Nielson poll showed a surge of support for Gillard. ‘The Age’ has reported that:

"The government's two-party vote has leapt 8 points in three weeks, taking it to a 55-45 per cent lead over the opposition… On these figures Labor would sweep to power with almost two-thirds of the seats in the House of Representatives."  http://www.theage.com.au/national/gillard-regains-a-winning-edge-20100625-z9sv.html

Many are responding to Gillard’s message that while the government had ‘lost its way’ she intends to get it ‘back on track’. Regardless of whether or not public disillusionment with Labor has been justified, Gillard is responding here to the sentiment in the electorate: and her message is finding resonance with voters. But importantly: in order to consolidate those supporters ‘returning home’ after defecting to the Greens, Gillard will need to construct robust policies on the environment.

While some focus on Gillard’s ‘shattering of the glass ceiling’, and her origins in the ALP Left, others will be wondering what the consequences of recent events will have for policy. It is the substance of policy implemented which, after all, matters most.

Public education and health seem to be passions for Gillard. But deep structural reform here would require tax reform in order to provide funding.

Would Gillard consider an increase in progressive taxation for her first term – of between 1% and 1.5% of GDP – focusing on the top 20% income demographic? Would she actively promote that position at the next ALP National Conference, and foreshadow this in the run-up to the election to secure a mandate?

Such modest reform – providing an annual pool of about $15-$20 billion from an economy of now at over $1 trillion annual value – could make a genuine and desperately-needed improvement to services in Aged Care, Mental Health, welfare and public education. Given our ageing population, it is also structural fiscal reform that cannot be put off forever without dire consequences!

And in the same spirit, would Gillard introduce a National Disability Insurance Scheme?

How these policy issues are resolved is ultimately what is most important: even more important than the individual who occupies the office of Prime Minister.

While recognising the Rudd legacy, we need now to look to the future and work for a Gillard Labor victory; hopefully with the critical and reasonably conditional support of the Greens in the Senate.

But this needs to take place in the context of building a base of support for reform of tax and social wage provision – and other critical areas such as the environment and industrial relations - under Gillard Labor.

The task for progressives is to make our support – and with this support for such a reform agenda – indispensable for Labor – but in a context within which Labor is still electable.

Despite recent setbacks, we should not resign ourselves to the notion that ‘this is the end’ for reformist Labor governments.

nb: If you enjoyed this article pls join our Facebook group - to link up with other readers, and to receive regular updates on new material.

see: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=58243419565

The Mining Super-Profits Tax Debate – an analysis

The Australian Labor government has proposed a landmark mining ‘super profits’ tax, but resistance from a cashed-up mining industry is revealing the fragility of Australian democracy.  This article considers the arguments around this tax debate in detail.


By Tristan Ewins

For the most part since its election in 2007, the Rudd Labor Australian government appeared to enjoy a position which could almost have been said to have been unassailable. Kevin Rudd himself was riding high in the polls as one of the most popular Prime Ministers ever.

Importantly: Labor steered Australia successfully from the threat of recession, engaged in the practical and necessary business of counter-cyclical expenditure and investment in the face of dogmatic and opportunist resistance from the Conservative Opposition. Rudd’s apology to Australia’s ‘stolen generation’ of indigenous peoples removed from their families was also crucial and ground-breaking. And more recently, the wages of Australia’s lowest paid were to a significant degree restored.

But in recent months these achievements have been obscured behind scandal over the implementation of Labor’s home insulation scheme; and almost entirely overshadowed by a co-ordinated campaign to derail Labor’s proposed ‘mining super profits tax’. We will deal here mainly with the struggle over tax reform.

Labor Party parliamentary candidate, Andrew Leigh has put the case for the ‘super profits tax’ at the ALP website itself. Leigh points out that twenty leading Australian economists support the proposed tax: including himself, John Quiggin, Fred Argy, Allan Fels and many others. And the revenue gained from the proposed tax is projected to pay for a 2% reduction in Company Tax more broadly; and this is to provide the scope for a rise in employer superannuation contributions from 9% to 12%. http://www.alp.org.au/20-economists-support-resource-rent-tax

In Australia, superannuation is a system of private retirement savings, sponsored by government, with contributions by both employers and workers. While there are serious flaws with regard to equity in the broader scheme of superannuation, obviously the proposed reform could make a big difference to the retirement incomes of Australian workers over the long term.

At the Australian Labor Party website, David Bradbury has also put the case for the proposed tax.
Bradbury argues:

“The existing royalties system is inefficient and out-dated and hasn’t kept pace with the increasing profitability of the resources sector through the mining boom. Before the last mining boom, the Australian people received $1 out of every $3 of profits in royalties and charges, but at the end of that boom, that rate was down to $1 out of every $7.” http://www.alp.org.au/giving-australians-decent-retirement-income

Labor Minister Craig Emerson also puts a case in favour of the proposed tax.

Writing at Australian political website ‘The Punch’ Emerson explains how the ‘super profits tax’, a form of ‘resource rent’ taxation, would replace the current system of royalties. He argues that the proposed tax regime would be fairer in that it taxes profits specifically, instead of “on the [basis of] the amount of minerals extracted.” This, Emerson insists would actually remove disincentives for new investment. http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/going-boom-the-economic-case-for-the-mining-tax/

Australian economist John Quiggin has also put many arguments in favour of the proposed tax reform.

He explains that in cases where mining companies make “super-normal” profits regardless of tax, the proposed tax reform will not comprise an obstacle to investment.

Specifically, Quiggin entreats us to take mining industry threats of capital flight ‘with a grain of salt’, listing occasions on which the mining giants have made threats in the past:

“…when they were upset about tax policy, about environmental restrictions, about Aboriginal land rights, about union wage demands and work practices…” http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2010/05/10/some-thoughts-on-resource-rent-tax/

Finally, Quiggin believes such a tax would be equitable, falling mainly upon wealthy investors “many of whom are foreigners.”

Veteran Fairfax journalist Tim Colebatch has also made a number of interesting points in a recent opinion piece.

The title of this piece is perhaps misleading: “Resource Tax amounts to 50% nationalisation of the mines”. The tax no more represents nationalisation than does Company Tax considered more broadly. And even though Colebatch is dubious of Treasury claims that: “the community's share of mining profits has shrunk from 55 per cent over the five years to 2003-04 to 27 per cent in 2008-09”, he nevertheless recognises that the government has a genuine case for reform. http://www.watoday.com.au/opinion/politics/resource-tax-amounts-to-40-nationalisation-of-the-mines-20100607-xqn0.html

A crucial point, as Colebatch recognises it that:

“The Bureau of Statistics' recent round-up of industry data for 2008-09 estimates the profit margin in mining that year was 37.1 per cent. That's three times the industry average of 11.2 per cent… They're doing well.” http://www.watoday.com.au/opinion/politics/resource-tax-amounts-to-40-nationalisation-of-the-mines-20100607-xqn0.html

In fact mining profits are sometimes even higher than this.

Colebatch also observes that:

“Analysts believe the mining boom is the main driver of the dollar's rise, which has wiped out sales and profits for industries lacking its huge profit margin as a cushion.” http://www.watoday.com.au/opinion/politics/resource-tax-amounts-to-40-nationalisation-of-the-mines-20100607-xqn0.html

The point of this is that with the robust dollar, some industries such as tourism and manufacturing are becoming less competitive. Restructuring the tax mix as Rudd Labor is attempting to do is one way of redressing this situation. But cutting overall tax as a proportion of GDP is not an acceptable alternative as there remains a need to provide for welfare and services; including education and infrastructure from which business clearly benefits. (and therefore must pay its fair share to support)

As the debate on the proposed mining tax has developed the fragility of Australian democracy has in some ways become apparent. While the mining giants have a war-chest of billions to draw upon in pushing fear and disinformation, no political party, NGO or social movement can possibly compete.

Much of the Australian media have also apparently abandoned any pretence to inclusiveness and objectivity; throwing themselves head-first into what could honestly be described as a ‘campaign’. Somewhere, we must assume, there is a convergence of interests. The ‘Herald-Sun’, a Melbourne newspaper, for instance carried the headline:

“Bloody amateurs! Harvey Norman chief blasts Kevin Rudd, Wayne Swan over mining tax” http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/bloody-amateurs-harvey-norman-chief-blasts-kevin-rudd-wayne-swan-over-mining-tax/story-e6frf7l6-1225878174465

But excluded entirely from this article was recognition that elsewhere Gerry Harvey, the CEO of major retail chain Harvey-Norman, had actually stated that he did not oppose the tax. http://www.insideretailing.com.au/Latest/tabid/53/ID/8405/Rudd-government-bloody-amateurs--Gerry-Harvey.aspx

Meanwhile: amidst the fear and disinformation, Labor’s implementation of paid parental leave – a landmark reform – received minimal attention from significant sections of the Australian media.

And Chief Executive of the Australian Industry Group (AIG), Heather Riddout, after stating her support for mining tax reform, focusing on “super-normal” profits in ‘The Age’, was ignored by much of the Australian media. (The AIG is a significant and important employer peak body) http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/pilloried-tax-is-a-step-in-the-right-direction-20100609-xwq2.html

Finally, sections of the media have constantly referred to the ‘mining super profits tax’ instead as the ‘super tax’, with an obviously altered connotation.

This kind of ‘framing’ of the debate – with very selective quotations, and sometimes a virtual ‘media blackout’ of themes inconsistent with the ‘campaign’ - is both biased and deliberate; and is a genuine threat to Australian democracy in the meaningful sense of the word.

Much attention has been paid to the perceived hypocrisy of the Labor government in devoting public funds to an advertising campaign of its own; but while Rudd Labor seems to be contradicting its past policy here, there are subtleties that are lost in this debate. In fact civic organisations need to be empowered as against the potential clout of big business; not just in these circumstances, but also more broadly.

In fact a fair compromise would be to devote sufficient public funds for information campaigns and advertising to be available for political tendencies across the political spectrum. One way or another we need to make sure the resources of political parties, NGOs and social movements and such are sufficient to be able to get their message across clearly, and not to be disadvantaged – or even eclipsed - by the level of resources available to the most powerful and wealthy interests.

Theoretically, government has other options at its disposal also. Were a ‘capital strike’ to take place, government could ‘step into the breach’. Abandoned mines could be commandeered, with fair compensation being paid to those who formerly held title.

And a public mining company could be established directly: with the effect of profits flowing directly to the community, literally providing many billions which could be invested in infrastructure and social services.

Perhaps the current political climate, influenced by the long-held neo-liberal consensus, works against such options. But when billions are being ripped out of the country with ‘super-profits’ every year, it is in the national interest for government to invest directly in mining.

Importantly, there are precedents which point to the workability of some form of mining super-profits tax. A ‘Resource Rent Tax’, has operated successfully in the oil and gas industries for over twenty years without any ‘collapse’ of investment.  Although as Tim Colebatch explains: while this tax is also applied at a rate of 40 per cent, it factors in only “above a benchmark (regarding profit levels) set 5 percentage points higher than Kevin Rudd and Swan now propose.” http://www.watoday.com.au/opinion/politics/resource-tax-amounts-to-40-nationalisation-of-the-mines-20100607-xqn0.html

Progressive blogger, John Passant has quoted John Kehoe of the “Financial Review’ to the effect that the existing mining tax proposal would only ‘kick in’ at 12 per cent and higher. This means the regime proposed by Colebatch would see higher taxes on ‘super-profits’ of 17 per cent and above. http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/mining-tax-will-cost-jobs-and-other-lies-20100611-y1hf.html?comments=27

As observed earlier in this article, there are many big mining operations which enjoy profits way above this threshold.

While the existing proposal from Labor is fair – and does focus genuinely on ‘super-profits’ (far above average business profits), it’s important also for the government to think about the current struggle strategically.

Under favourable conditions, it’s important to set new standards; especially where existing arrangements are unfair. Some commentators (eg: John Passant) have written that it’s actually the prospect of a new precedent that frightens the mining bosses most. http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/mining-tax-will-cost-jobs-and-other-lies-20100611-y1hf.html?comments=27

But the power of existing precedents certainly should not be understated.

Given this, it would be legitimate for Labor to consider some restructure of its mining tax proposal: to more precisely match regimes already existing and maintained successfully. By this I refer to the existing resource rent arrangements that apply in areas of the oil and gas sectors. That such a regime could be shown to have already been successful elsewhere – could go a great distance in allaying the fears of the Australian public. Such a compromise would still focus on ‘super-profits’, and – importantly - would establish a foothold for Labor in establishing the principle of resource rent for the mining sector.

And it is a very important principle to establish: as these non-renewable resources belong to the Australian people as represented by democratically-elected government; and there must be some reasonable kind of premium paid by miners on top of Company Tax to reflect this.

Calls for Labor to ‘dump’ Rudd clearly factor into a broader de-stabilisation campaign by the biggest mining bosses and their allies - such as the conservative Opposition which has sold-out the Australian national interest out of sheer opportunism. To replace Rudd now would also set a precedent – that Labor will ‘dance to the tune’ of big business whenever it faces real resistance.

That said: at times Rudd has looked rattled, as if he was entirely unprepared for the scale of resistance he would face in promoting resource-rent reform. Rudd needs to project an image of being calm and in-control.

Prominent political theorist, Christopher Pierson, has considered the dilemmas facing social democrats in great detail. Observing a general trend in social democratic politics, he has written:

“social democratic politics has always been resolutely possibilist or pragmatic.” “…being available to fight on another day is almost always preferred to heroically taking the field against the odds.” (Pierson, 2001. p 57)

There are times when commentators, political parties, social movements and NGOs need to be more uncompromising. If everyone always simply focused on the relative political centre, broader political debate would be silenced, and the course of long-term progressive reform stymied. That means there is still a need to talk about things even that are not possible for the time-being.

But following Pierson’s observation - Labor, for now, could do to withdraw to a ‘better defensive position’; adopting the compromise suggested by Colebatch, and selling resource-rent reform on the basis that the same regime has been implemented successfully elsewhere in the Australian economy. Again: precedent is very important in cementing an aura of credibility in the eyes of the electorate.

There are interests in the mining industry which certainly feel that they have been ‘singled out’: but beyond this there is a genuine case for reform; that the Australian people truly deserve a share when it comes the natural resources which belong, collectively, to all of them.

The challenge for Labor, though, is to apply these principles fairly and indiscriminately, regardless the interests involved; for the principle of distributive justice, and for the collective sake of the Australian people.


nb: If you enjoyed this article pls join our Facebook group - to link up with other readers, and to receive regular updates on new material.

see: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=58243419565